Moranza v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• affirming conviction and concluding that jury’s rejection of insanity defense was not manifestly unjust despite defendant’s diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia and 9 despite expert testimony that defendant was legally insane given other evidence that was presented at trial
• recounting the evolution of legal and factual sufficiency review in Texas
• “[I]nstead of summarily finding the evidence legally insufficient to support the jury’s verdict of guilt, the appellate court should examine the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the counts on which a conviction was rendered.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).